Response to Leighton Flowers (Pt1)

Welcome back to Coffee with a Calvinist. This program is dedicated to helping you better understand the word of God and the doctrines of grace. The Bible tells us, do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

Get your Bible and coffee ready and prepare to study along. Here's your host with today's lesson, Pastor Keith Foskey.

The Listener Question and the Two-Part Response

And welcome back to Coffee with a Calvinist. My name is Keith Foskey and I am a Calvinist. Today we are going to be looking at a listener question. But before we do that, I want to remind you that if you are following along in our daily Bible reading, today is September 2nd, 2020.

That means our Bible reading for today is 1 Timothy chapter two. Now I wanna hasten on to today's subject because I've got a lot to get through and I want to make sure that we try to keep in our normal timeframe.

I received a listener question last week and it is a question that I have decided I want to seek to respond to on the program rather than simply respond to him privately. I've decided I wanna deal with this question directly.

And it's a question about something that I wasn't sure if I was going to really deal with this early in the life of the program. This is a relatively new podcast. I started back several months ago because of COVID -19 and it really is a podcast that's dedicated to the members of Sovereign Grace Family Church.

The focus of this is to teach a daily Bible study for the members of Sovereign Grace Family Church and to provide insight into the word of God and instructions in the word of God and the doctrines of grace.

We are a reformed church. I'm a Calvinist. I'm a pastor. And so my heart primarily is for the people of Sovereign Grace. But I also am thankful that we have a wider audience. There are people that listen to us not just here in Jacksonville, not just here in our church, but there are people that listen to us from all areas.

And so I want to be able to respond. And as I was saying, the thing that I wanna get to is I was asked a question about another theologian and something that he had said about Calvinism. And if you've never heard of this person before, his name is Leighton Flowers and he has a website, Soteriology 101.

And Leighton is opposed to Calvinism. He is opposed to the doctrines of grace. And if you go to his website, and I would encourage that you go to his website if you're interested in hearing what he has to say.

I'm not afraid of you going and looking at what he has to say. You'll notice that he makes many, many arguments against Calvinism and against the doctrines of grace. And when I was asked by this listener why I wasn't responding to him, my initial response was, well, I believe Dr. James White has done a very good job of responding to the arguments of Leighton Flowers.

And if you look at their debates, they have had a public debate on the subject of Romans 9. They have had interactions online. I think Dr. White has done a good job of dealing with Leighton Flowers. And so I didn't feel like this was something I needed to pick up and do because I felt like Dr. White had already done that.

But at the same time, the listener made the comment that he felt like there were two questions that had been raised by Flowers that he felt had not been adequately responded to. And he sent me those two questions and he asked me to respond to them directly.

And so these are the two questions I'm going to respond to. I'm gonna respond to the first one today and the next one tomorrow. So today is September 2nd, tomorrow is September 3rd. I will deal with them in order.

And the two questions are as follows. Number one, the gospel is sufficient to enable a response. And so that's not really a question. I'm gonna talk about that in a minute. That's more of a statement.

The gospel is sufficient to enable a response. Therefore Calvinism isn't true because Calvinism says man is unable to respond. And so that's a question we're gonna deal with today. Now, tomorrow we're gonna deal with this question a little bit longer, a little bit more detailed.

This question for tomorrow's program, if total inability is biblical, total depravity, however you wanna say it, does John 12, 37 to 40 imply almost escapably that they had the ability to believe, it's a bit weird for God to blind people for the purpose of preventing belief when they are already unable to believe?

That's the question we're gonna deal with tomorrow. So there's two questions. First, is the gospel sufficient to enable a response? And then tomorrow, second, does not passages like John 12 imply inescapably that men do have the ability to believe?

So that's the two questions we're gonna deal with. We're gonna start with the first one today, the question of is the gospel sufficient to enable a response? And again, this is formed in the form of a statement.

The gospel is sufficient to enable a response. That's the argument being made. And the assumption of the question is that Calvinists are diminishing the inherent power of the gospel by saying that men cannot believe the gospel apart from being enabled by the Holy Spirit.

Since we're saying that the unbeliever cannot believe apart from grace, then we're saying that the gospel somehow is impotent to change a heart. In this, we're being accused of saying that the gospel, which the Bible says is the power of God unto salvation, actually isn't the power of God unto salvation.

And so I think I understand the statement, I think I understand the question, and I want to address it like this. I hope that the listener who sent this question, I hope that I'm framing it properly, that the argument that's being made is that the gospel is sufficient to enable a response.

And when Calvinists say that a person cannot believe the gospel apart from the work of the Holy Spirit, that what we're saying is the gospel is not powerful enough, therefore we're saying the gospel is impotent.

Now, now that we've heard the argument, I want to go ahead and begin to make my response. And I've thought through this response, and I think that I'm gonna provide one that I hope is not only understandable, but also addresses the statement and the heart behind it.

Because even though I don't know Leighton Flowers, I do know a few things about him, having looked at his website and having heard him speak. I know that he does not seem to believe in total depravity.

He seems to hold to the belief that man is not in any way unable to believe the gospel. And this is clear, where on his own website, he identifies himself as a traditionalist. And this is, I'm gonna quote from his website.

This is Soteriology101 .com, Why I Am Not an Arminian is the title of this article. And what he says is this, quote, traditionalists simply do not accept the presumption that the libertarian freedom of man's will was lost due to the fall.

As article two of the traditional statement says, we deny that Adam's sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person's free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned. All right, so that's the end of the quote.

And that is defining himself as a traditionalist. He's saying traditionalists do not accept the presumption that man's freedom has been lost due to the fall and Adam's sin did not result in the incapacitation of any person's free will.

Now, I wanna begin my response just to that statement because what I find ironic is that Flowers identifies himself and others like him identify themselves as traditionalists, particularly among Southern Baptists.

And I say I find that ironic because the founders of the SBC would have all affirmed total depravity and would all deny the statement he makes when he identifies himself as a traditionalist. The founders of the SBC, the early writers of the SBC affirmed total inability or total depravity.

We see this in their statements. We see this in their confessions. In fact, the earliest confession in the United States, I believe, the earliest confession is the Philadelphia Confession. Philadelphia Baptist Association adopted this confession in 1742, the first Baptist confession adopted in the US, I believe, and on the subject of the will, chapter nine, it says this, and I quote, "'Man, by his fall unto a state of sin, "'hath wholly lost all ability of will "'to any spiritual good accompanying salvation.

"'So as a natural man, being altogether averse "'from that good and deed and sin, "'is not able by his own strength to convert himself "'or to prepare himself thereunto, "'when God converts a sinner and translates him "'into a state of grace, he freeth him "'from his natural bondage under sin, "'and by his grace alone enables him freely to will "'and to do that which is spiritually good.

"'Yet so that by reason of his remaining corruptions, "'he doth not perfectly nor only will that which is good, "'but doth also will that which is evil.'".

End quote.

All right, that's chapter nine. The title of that chapter is Of Free Will, and it clearly teaches, and this is, again, an early Baptist confession here in the United States, a Philadelphia confession, that man is wholly lost his ability to will any spiritual good accompanying salvation.

Now, let's fast forward a little bit in history, and we'll go to something called the abstract of principles. The abstract of principles is something that was adopted in 1858 by the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

So this is not only Baptist, this is particularly Southern Baptist, and this is a document which is part of the fundamental laws of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Every professor in that institution has to agree to this, and I wanna just read a couple things.

First is article six. Article six says, "'God originally created man in his own image, "'free from sin, but through temptation to sin, "'he transgressed the command of God "'and fell from his original holiness and righteousness, "'whereby his posterity inherit a nature corrupt "'and wholly opposed to God and his law, "'are under condemnation, and as soon as they are capable "'of moral action, become actual transgressors.'".

So this says, very specifically, that the posterity of Adam has inherited a nature corrupt and wholly opposed to God and to his law. Now, I wanna also look at article eight of the abstract, because it says, "'Regeneration is a change of heart, "'wrought by the Holy Spirit, "'who quickeneth the dead in trespasses and sins, "'enlightening their mind spiritually and savingly "'to understand the word of God, "'and renewing their whole nature "'so that they love and practice holiness.

"'It is a work of God's free and special grace alone.'". Again, so we have a statement from the Philadelphia Confession, we have a statement from the abstract of principles, two articles from the abstract of principles, which affirm man is dead in his sin, he is unable to do anything good toward God unless God first enlightens his mind, God first quickens his dead spirit.

All of these things are affirmed by these confessions. And I want to also mention this, that these confessions of faith are not scripture. I understand that, but I'm sharing them to affirm the fact that to say that he's traditional and also denying total depravity is a bit misleading.

In fact, I want to quote Dr. Tom Nettles. Dr. Tom Nettles is a notable Baptist historian and professor. He wrote an article about the history of Calvinism in the SBC. It's available through the founder's website, and he says this, quote,.

The position of the Calvinistic Southern Baptists can be found in the confession of the Charleston Baptist Association, the Georgia Baptist Association, or the confession of the Mississippi Baptist Association.

And he goes on to say, the fact is the loss of Calvinism in issues concerning election, depravity, and effectual calling paralleled the loss of inerrancy and soteriological exclusivity and has led to a truncated evangelism that jettisoned the doctrinal foundations for the examination of an experience of grace, end quote.

In essence, the expelling of man's inability, the expelling of the doctrine of total depravity removes the sufficiency and even the necessity of a work of grace and the act of believing, as stated in their own words, the so-called traditionalists, deny any incapacitation on the part of man.

And this has been denied in historic Baptist soteriology. So to call themselves traditionalists, I think is untrue. To be honest, I think it's an untrue statement. But they're gonna call themselves what they're gonna call themselves.

That's not the point. My point today is to simply say this. The Bible says that natural man cannot submit to God's law, Romans 8 .7. The Bible says natural man cannot please God, Romans 8 .8. The Bible says the natural man is at enmity with God, Romans 5 and 10.

The Bible says the message of the cross is foolishness to the natural man, 1 Corinthians 2 .14. This is why we contend, as Calvinists, that God must do something before man can believe. And the funny thing is we agree with the Arminians on this.

They, the Arminians, argue God gives universal, prevenient grace to everyone so that they may believe. Calvinists believe God gives special elective grace to believers only. But at least we both understand the same foundational thing that no one can believe apart from grace.

Flowers denies, it seems, even that. He ends up opposing not only Calvin and not only Arminius, but he ends up opposing Augustine. And I would contend he opposes Paul and Jesus as well. So, is the gospel sufficient to bring a response?

My answer in simple terms, no. Because apart from the Holy Spirit, the gospel is foolishness to the unbeliever. I'll never forget this story from Dr. R .C. Sproul. And he told this story a long time ago.

He tells of a time when he was preaching the gospel. And while he was preaching the gospel, a man stood and yelled, "'That message is primitive and obscene.'". Now, I couldn't imagine being, preaching to a group of people and having someone stand up and yell that at me, but Dr. Sproul was much better than me.

And he was able to, in his quick mind, provide a response. When that man stood up and he said, "'That message is primitive and obscene,' Dr. Sproul said, "'Yes, it is.'". The belief that God is holy and requires his wrath to be satisfied and that he is propitiated by pouring out his wrath upon his son is a primitive idea.

It is obscene, it is offensive to the natural mind. But that is the point. The message is primitive and obscene and only those who have been given eyes to see will be able to recognize the beauty contained within.

The Traditionalist Claim and Historic Baptist Confessions

Now, I want to conclude today by quoting again from Dr. Tom Nettles. And if you're not familiar with Tom Nettles, I would encourage you to become familiar with him. He is a tremendous scholar and teacher.

And this is what he says about the traditionalist position, which is held by Flowers and others. The traditionalist non-Calvinist believes he is traditional because he has accepted the evangelical cultural orthodoxy that emerged as dominant in the middle of the 20th century.

It highlights a diminished salvation in which human autonomy controls the final determination as to the success of God's saving purpose. The non-Calvinist position holds that the natural man who does not accept the things of the spirit is able to manifest repentance and faith.

This view virtually destroys the distinction between the natural man and the spiritual man, 1 Corinthians 2, 14 to 16, leading to low expectations concerning the spirituality of church members. Thankfully, the conservative Southern Baptists, non-Calvinists have not adopted the preaching purpose or absolutely detached evangelistic appeal of Joel Osteen.

Their position nevertheless is on that plane and leads to bad religion. Now, again, those are the words of Tom Nettles, but they are strong words indeed, and I will end with those. I hope that today has been an encouragement to you, and I look forward to you coming tomorrow and listening in as we continue to deal with the second question from our listener about Leighton Flowers' arguments at Soteriology 101.

Again, thank you for listening to Coffee with a Calvinist. My name is Keith Foskey, and I've been your Calvinist.

Thank you for joining in for today's episode of Coffee with a Calvinist. Keep in mind, we have a new lesson available every weekday morning at 6 .30 a .m. on YouTube and Facebook. If you enjoyed this lesson, please take a moment to respond by hitting the like button, leaving a comment, and subscribing to the channel.

On behalf of Pastor Foskey, thank you for listening. May God bless you.